Supreme Court Faces Decision on LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy

Newsweek

2 days ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments this fall in a case about whether it should uphold or overturn Colorado's ban on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy.
Why It Matters
More than 20 states have banned conversion therapy, the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The practice has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ+ advocates and many medical professionals who say conversion therapy does not work, lacks a scientific basis and can impose harm on minors.
The nation's highest court on Tuesday announced that it will hear arguments in the case Chiles v. Salazar on October 7, 2025. The ruling could have key implications for the legality of conversion therapy in the states that have banned the practice. It has drawn concerns within the community, as some are concerned that the conservative-leaning bench could require states to allow conversion therapy.
What To Know
The Supreme Court case focuses on Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado who challenged the state's law prohibiting the use of conversion therapy on minors. In a petition to the Supreme Court, her attorneys wrote that she is a "licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them."
The petition raised a First Amendment argument, accusing Colorado of trying to ban "consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express."
Proponents of the ban on conversion therapy point to statistics showing it can harm LGBTQ+ youth. A 2020 study from the Trevor Project found that minors who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to have reported suicide attempts and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts compared to those who did not.
Supporters argue that the state has the authority to regulate health care services that put minors at risk.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Canva/Getty
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, argued in a filing that Court precedent "allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech."
"The Court of Appeals engaged in a straightforward application of this precedent to hold that the First Amendment allows states to regulate the professional practice of conversion therapy, like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, to protect minor patients from substandard professional care," he wrote.
Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek that the "Supreme Court's tea leaves seem to suggest that the Colorado law may be in peril."
"That law proscribes alleged 'conversion therapy' by a professional counselor, whose sincere views are based on her Christian ideals and whose clients (adults and young people) actively seek her guidance because of their shared religious beliefs. To the Court, based on earlier cases, children are extremely vulnerable to the possible risks of such therapy and lack the maturity to accept or reject it," he said.
However, the counselor argues that her First Amendment rights to "advise and assist her willing clients, who voluntarily wish to align their lives with their Christian faith, are unconstitutionally abridged by the broad state's law."
"We shall see next year what the Court decides in this difficult case," Rossi said.
Ryan Thoreson, a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati, told Newsweek he believes Colorado has strong arguments in favor of its ban, but that he is "skeptical this Court will uphold the state's conversion therapy ban in light of its recent First Amendment rulings."
"The Roberts Court has been consistently solicitous toward free speech and religious exercise claims brought by conservative litigants, even when those claims undermine longstanding laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination and harm," he said.
Colorado is likely to argue that it is "well-established that states can permissibly regulate the conduct of medical professionals, and can prohibit practices that fall below a certain standard of professional care."
"And they can do so even when that conduct involves some amount of speech. While the state can't prevent private citizens from voicing their opinion that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed, they can prevent licensed medical professionals from trying to promote or facilitate that change as part of their practice, especially in light of a large body of evidence showing that conversion therapy is damaging to young LGBT people's mental health," Thoreson said.
Chiles, meanwhile, is likely to argue the law censors her speech based on her views about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Generally, if the state is censoring speech based on content, it must pass a "heavy burden" to prove a "compelling interest in limiting the speech" and that the regulation is the least speech-restrictive way of achieving its interest, Thoreson said.
Colorado likely would not be the only state affected, according to Thoreson.
"What the Supreme Court decides in this case could also have seismic repercussions for state regulation of medical speech more generally. A broad First Amendment right of medical providers to say or recommend whatever they like without professional or legislative oversight, even when there is clear evidence that doing so is harmful, could open the door to pseudoscience and junk science in both medical and physical health care settings," he said.
Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Chiles, told Newsweek that children should not be "forced into one-size-fits-all options when they're looking for counseling help."
"They deserve real support, not just state-approved talking points. Our client Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, works with her clients who voluntarily come to her with their goals to talk through what they are facing. Struggling kids deserve better than Colorado's law that pushes them toward harmful drugs and surgeries," he said.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, told Newsweek there is a "real risk that the outcome indeed may be here that the court strikes down a ban on conversion therapy for minors."
"What we know from well established science and research is that there is no amount of talk or pressure that can make a gay person not gay, or a trans person not transgender," Levi said. "It's really important that licensed therapists don't abuse their position of trust to push an agenda that research has shown puts kids at high risk of suicide attempts and self harm."
Levi said it is "always hard to anticipate the scope of the court's decision," but it is possible the ruling could have "quite significant" implications for other states that have banned the practice.
Do Americans Support Conversion Therapy?
A majority of Americans are opposed to conversion therapy, according to a poll from Data for Progress, which surveyed 1,155 likely voters from June 6 to June 8, 2025.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said they agreed conversion therapy should be banned, while only 35 percent said they should be allowed to take place. Sixty-two percent of Democrats, 57 percent of independents and 49 percent of Republicans believed the practice should be banned.
A December 2023 report from The Trevor Project found that there were 1,320 conversion therapy practitioners operating across the country, 605 of whom were operating under professional licenses.
What Have Supreme Court Justices Said About Conversion Therapy?
So far, at least one justice has signaled opposition to conversion therapy bans. After the court rejected a similar case out of Washington, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing, "There is a fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria. The petitioner, Brian Tingley, stands on one side of the divide. He believes that a person's sex is 'a gift from God, integral to our very being.'"
Still, the court in 2023 rejected the challenge to a Washington law prohibiting conversion therapy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the law was regulating mental health care, not the speech of the provider. The court's decision to reject that challenge left that ruling in place.
In addition to Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the rejection and would have heard the case.
What People Are Saying
Casey Pick, director of Law and Policy at The Trevor Project, told Newsweek: "The law at the heart of this case protects young people in Colorado from dangerous, discredited practices that have been proven to cause harm and increase suicide risk. This common-sense, bipartisan state law was put in place to prevent licensed mental health professionals from using these abusive practices on Colorado's youth; it really is that simple.
"This law is squarely focused on ensuring that providers with government-issued licenses do not abuse the trust placed in them to subject minors to practices that have been rejected by every medical and mental health association in the country. We know that proponents of so-called conversion 'therapy' are making every attempt to impose an ideologically driven agenda. However, we remain hopeful that the justices will side with reason, evidence, and expertise, and uphold this effort by Colorado lawmakers to protect the health and safety of young people."
Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told Newsweek: "All who choose to live consistent with their biological sex are entitled to the help of counselors like Kaley as they work through that process. We hope the US Supreme Court will rule on the side of free speech and allow counselors like Kaley to work with her clients without the government mandating goals it prefers."
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, wrote in a statement in January: "In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado's judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we're committed to defending."
What Happens Next
Oral arguments are set for October 7.
The court has also been asked to weigh in on another major LGBTQ+ rights case.
Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, has asked the court to revisit that ruling and overturn the national right to same-sex marriage. Legal experts told Newsweek that the case is a long shot, however.